Incorrect on on all counts?
But you said i am correct on #1, on #2 you stated and i quote, ” I have seen what is going on and have formulated my opinion and it is that he was doing something very wrong.” to which I say exactly what did you see? You saw the liberal media doing what it does best; smear conservatives.

Based on that “view,” you have what is called an uninformed opinion. So excuse me, but I will take point two.

#3. If you believe that we have both been correct, even if the reasoning is faulty, you can’t also say I am wrong.

I have to give us this point, we out-lasted all the others on this subjetc!
BTW, what has the recent information on Stevens been? This is following a pattern we saw in the Delay of Texas smear; big news on the acusation prior to election, and then when little or nothing comes from it, BANG, the news-papers go silent.

That is why I prefaced my original post with the observation that it isn’t the substance of the charge, but the seriousness of it. It is substance that indicats guilt, not the seriousness.

And yep, it chaps my ass that OJ walked!
But it wont cause me to loose any sleep if Stevens walks. Because inspite of the “broken public trust issue,” no one was hurt.
There were less personal injuries in the Stevens charges than in a standard homsexual relationship.

1. Obvious
2. I care about his rights. I never said not to allow him his day in court. When he is found guilty then lock him up and throw away the key.
3. I believe that we have both been correct depending upon perspective.

Where did the OJ rip come from? Was that suposed to show the correctness of the law? Or, are you saying, because OJ knifed two people and walked, all courts are a sham?

But whatever, BD. You have your hate well honed and I am finding it tiresome to repeatedly point out the obvious.

We have established; 1. this isn’t court, 2. you don’t care about Stevens constitutional rights, and 3. You are wrong and I am right.

OK. Nuff said.

If it turns out he was not then I will change my opinion but it will have to be more than being found not guilty. OJ was found not guilty…

I am a law and order guy and if I were a lawyer I would be all “presumed innocent” but since I am not a lawyer, I will wait and see while keeping my opinion.

If he is guilty he should be in jail until he leaves this Earth. If not, he will end up losing his seat over this…

But that of course tosses this back into the legal definition of guilty, and BD’s equivocation of the meaning of “innocent” doesn’t change the fact that IF we are in the legal arena, we have to play by the rules of law, too; Innocent ’til proven guilty.
There is no path you can tread to justify setting aside this precedence.

Sorry BD. I love you and you know it. But I will not let anyone hang because the media proclaims him “guilty as charged.” Especially a conservative that we know the media, in all it’s entirety, hates.
I love you, but question your judgement, because you follow them down that dark path.
I wont go there.
If the media is screaming for Steven’s blood, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a lot more than meets the eye, and you should also note the warning flags.

Just the fact that the media is on Steven’s 84 year-old ass should be enough for you to say, “Wait just a dad-burn minute, here!” Al-la Hoss Cartwright!
You are better than this! You are a law-and-order man!
Why forsake what you believe in to go for the throat of a man who will be dealt with by the law in it’s own good time?
And as far as the bridge to now-where goes, are you really prepared to put your two-pipe shoot-gun to Stevens head on that? Worse mistakes were made by lessor people.

Much worse.

If a Congressman or Senator uses the earmark process to bring much needed funds or jobs to their constituents (who may or may not be us) are they doing wrong?

I ask this because my father moved to MT several years ago and he’s told me how a long time member of the House Conrad Burns recently (2006) lost to his Democratic opponent. You see the Dems promised that Tester would get Burns’ seat on the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, he did not. This has hurt Montana economically as projects and funds appropriations are no longer coming to MT. Nobody is claiming Burns was a great Senator (he was nowhere near a saint), just that his position did help MT economically.

It is good to remember that sometimes what is good for the constituents of a member of Congress might not be good for the rest of the Nation’s taxpayers as a whole. Now are they doing their jobs in such a case? Whom are they more responsible to, their constituents or the American taxpayer overall?

As for me I’m not throwing any stones…yet. I said if he’s guilty throw the book at him, if not leave him alone and stop wasting tax dollars.

Term limits give them less time to become corrupt, that is if they aren’t already. Also it blunts the powers of lobbyists some as the players may change more frequently. Also if they are worried about life after service its likely they might behave a little better since if they act poorly it might keep them from getting a job.

If there is quid pro quo the trust of the public is harmed. The law and Senate rules specifically do not allow this. I am not harmed if a company that I do no business with is robbed blind by its employees but the people still committed a crime.

Ted Stevens has abused his power in this and in the earmark process. Bridge to nowhere is reason enough to get rid of him.

Bottom line: Public servants accept the salaries of the positions they run for when they achieve them. If they feel they’re entitled to more compensation, let them rejoin the private sector and earn the money like everybody else. This is a simple case of abuse of power.

In this, all we have here is a difinitive argument in which you are both guilty (not by court but because you did it) of equivocation.

You use one meaning of the word to apply to actions that are reserved for the second meaning of the word.

Now, another fact; I grew up in Alaska. Te Stevens may be guilty! To the letter of the law in the jury-trial sense of the word.
But you are talking violation. The money and service he got from Veco has nothing to do with you. Nothing to do with Alaskans.

If Veco chooses to remodle Steven’s house, what part of that scenario violates you?
It is the implied quid-per-quo that you invision must happen to inspire Veco to do the remodel.

Veco wins oil-feild service contracts the same other companies do; by being the low-bider. If they use government knowledge to BE the low bidder, how does that hurt anyone? I mean, the low bid is the holy-grail of bidding and if the Stevens/Veco arrangement provide services for less cost to tax-payers, where is Patsy’s rape-case?
Does a win-win situation make you feel like the three-legged cat at a dog-team convention?

Don’t call Stevens a criminal until after the trial is over, “dear.” That is not polite nor is it factual.

Technically and factually this isn’t the dark ages and it isn’t a Stalinist Gulag. Is it? Steven is still innocent until the gavel falls, he remains so. Accused, yes! Looking bad. Yes.

It isn’t a point for either of you to debate. It is a legal issue so the legal definition of the word applies.